Alliance Wars - Short War Rounds Update

ky4e

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:08 PM

Quadro is right here, and con stated it already that WAR-BOOSTS are for ppl who raid...

my english is not so good but i try to explain another sight:

Pure PVE-Player have much more chances to get unique Weapons than raiders cause in the time where a raider raids, he cannot loot...

so for me it´s understandable that war-boosts are for ppl only who do war lol....

For the thread:

Still think that not only top 3 alliances should get rewards... i think when top 8 alliances (cause it´s first side then on war-ranks) or top10 would increase raid-participation lot more, even u get only just a spit of fuel or some nades...

Or better medics not nades cause much ppl from high alliances still using this melee-nade exploit which con is unable to fix

Frozenstorm

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:50 PM

Con, I really don't understand what's the problem with the one person alliances.

I hate PvP games, so this one person alliance gives me the chance to use the boosts. This game was a PvE one, when I started it, if I remember well.

Ultimately, single person "alliances" are not really alliances at all. They are single persons taking advantage of the system that was created for war. Alliances are supposed to be about group work, gathering people together to work towards common goal. And single person alliances are against this principle.

Also, you should remember that it's not like this new change forces you to participate war. Because you have options.

1. Join in some already existing purely looting alliance out there. Those alliances are pure PvE and members in these alliances enjoy that part of the game.

2. Make your single person alliance a new PvE alliance and recruit other like minded people.

In either case, you can enjoy full benefits from current war boosts without needing to participate to PvP part of the game. And all it requires from you is join other alliance/recruit members and then work as team. Just like the whole alliance system was supposed to be.

Edit: And there is 3 options too, which is to keep your single person alliance, but just need to work little more to get those tokens and boosts.

Anduvriel

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:51 PM

Anduvriel

285 posts

The point is that now when 1 man alliance will have it like 2 man alliance - its perfectly fine and acceptable.. but some of us fear that it will go further.. 2 man alliance needs to do as 4.. 3 as 6 than it will stop so only 5+ or maybe even 10+ members alliances will be able to get wartasks. That is where it can go and that is something i don't like.

Lets be perfectly clear.. If some people have time to play with 5 alts how in the world this new law will change anything.. instead of tons of 1 man alliances we will see tons of 2 man alliances - raider and his alt autoing for wartasks.. Sure it will be more pain for some, but seriously u think it will change anything?

I like to be in small alliances with folks i know, i don't have alts nor i raid. This will hit people like me not those guys that will farm warpoints from 10s of alts.

And yes i can change alliance, i can add people i don't want, i can play twice as much.. sure.. I can even change the game i like for some other one. I will take Cons words and enjoy it while i ...enjoy it..

Ellaria

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:51 PM

Ellaria

50 posts

I'm going to go out on a limb (the size of a tree trunk) here and say that the problem with a small alliance, 1 or even 6 accounts, is not with people who have only one account. There are players with MULTIPLE accounts and use their 2nd, and 3rd, and 4th, and 5th, and 6th accounts to farm unique items. So you are fixing the 1 man alliance. What about the exploiter with 2 alt accounts in 1 alliance? or 5, or 6? Are you drawing the line at just one?

I guess I don't see the harm in someone making an alliance by themselves if they only have the one account. Are they really bothering anyone? More uni's, more upgrades, more money spent. Seems like cutting off a revenue stream, in this instance, is bad. But, I suppose you are choosing that over trying to identify people with alternate accounts, flagging them, and then penalizing them from being in an alliance with fewer than 10 people. I say 10, because we know there are people with 6 and 7 alternate accounts.

Zingman

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:01 PM

Zingman

3,179 posts

Raiders have less time to spend on missions (because they're raiding), thus they need a boost to their missions so that they can remain on par with full-time PvE players in terms of gear/resources/etc. That's the logic behind the "war boosts"

The problem with that logic is that the boosts (as they are setup, and have always been setup) actually provide incentive to PvE and not PvP. If anything, the boosts discourage PvP. Take last rounds set of boosts for example. On Kong, where there is no DMU, purchasing the bonus boost got you 85% off return times (with UCS50), 70% off ammo (with AC50), 25% loot and 15% fuel. If you had the tokens, that's far too good a combo to pass up, and even the more hardcore raiders were spending more time on missions then they were on raids. As a result, Kong has one of the lowest scoring rounds -- ever.

As I and others mentioned in the Proposed War Changes thread, a "Boost Modifier" is the way to go. Use the existing boosts as the "base" and have modifiers of 1.25x, 1.5x and 2x, most likely tied to the benchmarks for the war rewards. A 10% loot boost would become a 12.5%, 15% or 20% loot boost depending upon how active a raider the player was.

---

Increasing the boost costs only discourages small/one-man alliances (slightly -- for DMU players it will have little to no effect). It makes the boosts do what they were actually intended -- give players a reason to band together. A "boost modifier" would encourage people to band together -- and raid.

Nephy

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:06 PM

Nephy

302 posts

What about the exploiter with 2 alt accounts in 1 alliance? or 5, or 6? Are you drawing the line at just one?

People with alt accounts are not considered 'exploiters', alts are a legitimate and accepted part of this game. Con will and should never punish people who pour their time into using multiple accounts, because those people are also likely a strong source of revenue for the developers.

Having said that, in the spirit of what's being done here - i.e. encouraging alliances to actually be groups of players, not an individual - it might be a good idea for an alliance to at least need 2 members playing from different IPs before boosts work, or something like that.

Ellaria

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:10 PM

Ellaria

50 posts

The point is that now when 1 man alliance will have it like 2 man alliance - its perfectly fine and acceptable.. but some of us fear that it will go further.. 2 man alliance needs to do as 4.. 3 as 6 than it will stop so only 5+ or maybe even 10+ members alliances will be able to get wartasks. That is where it can go and that is something i don't like.

Lets be perfectly clear.. If some people have time to play with 5 alts how in the world this new law will change anything.. instead of tons of 1 man alliances we will see tons of 2 man alliances - raider and his alt autoing for wartasks.. Sure it will be more pain for some, but seriously u think it will change anything?

I like to be in small alliances with folks i know, i don't have alts nor i raid. This will hit people like me not those guys that will farm warpoints from 10s of alts.

And yes i can change alliance, i can add people i don't want, i can play twice as much.. sure.. I can even change the game i like for some other one. I will take Cons words and enjoy it while i ...enjoy it..

Yup. Well played. And I raid. How's that uni made? 5 alts who farm get paid. I digress...

"I like to be in small alliances with folks i know ". And there ya have it. One second listening to drama or dealing with it, is one second I won't by typing in a card number for some amazing new Halloween deals. My spending is determined on how much fun the game is. It is most fun when I know everyone in my alliance, and we all pull our weight because of it. We all have DMU's because of it, and have all purchased fuel because of it.

I would simply ask that since ya'll have allowed alts, that you make adjustments starting from that reality in mind. I'm not say you have forgotten, I am only asking that perhaps it might be best to cater such rules adjustments to alt specific accounts. Perhaps require alt account players to designate which of their accounts will be considered their main account. Perhaps charge 2500 fuel to switch designation from one account to another. My point being that perhaps in an attempt to keep the 20% who would be your cash cow happy, you allowed alts. My hope is that since that can of worms is now open, that you would make that distinction rather than making a mass rule that would not have been an issue had alt accounts been disallowed. And can I get a hot tub (for my compound of course)?

Ellaria

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:18 PM

Ellaria

50 posts

People with alt accounts are not considered 'exploiters', alts are a legitimate and accepted part of this game. Con will and should never punish people who pour their time into using multiple accounts, because those people are also likely a strong source of revenue for the developers.

Having said that, in the spirit of what's being done here - i.e. encouraging alliances to actually be groups of players, not an individual - it might be a good idea for an alliance to at least need 2 members playing from different IPs before boosts work, or something like that.

I agree with the obvious that players should not be "punished" for what I believe was not a great move by the dev team - and therefor, not technically an exploit.

Never the less, I see it as a flaw, an exploit, and an unfair advantage for a majority of players that have "as God intended", one account. Most alts are farming alts, and a means to gain an advantage that I do not believe is good for the game. But that ship has sailed. So my humble request would be to manage these kind of rule changes directed toward identifying alts, and giving individuals with alts the option to choose a main account which may take advantage of being in a small alliance, but are not boosted to the ridiculous by simply adding alt accounts to that alliance.

T_J

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:47 PM

T_J

481 posts

Ellaria, what would having to choose a main account mean? Con&Crew knows what accounts are tied together already. Just out of curiosity, what alliance are you in? You just come off as so aggressive and full of dejection. Its kind of like you have your ideas of what you want the game to be and it doesn't matter how other people enjoy this game. You bring zero production to any conversation.

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:48 PM

crazyeightyfive

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:52 PM

crazyeightyfive

266 posts

Your rewards in almost anything are proportional to the effort you expend. Alts are work to maintain.

Saying (or even implying) that alts are exploits is the same as saying (or implying) that the player who spends Fuel to speed up return times so he or she can raid thirty times in one day is an exploiter. If someone wishes to create an alternate account where's the exploit in that?

"They get more unis than me with their 10s of alts." And? lots of people get more unis than me too, and I have alts - doesn't make them cheaters/exploiters.

"They load them down with unis so they can smash noobs." I'm a lvl 50 noob, and if I took my WF off for a few days I'd show you some raid reports that make me look like I just built my two-way - and that doesn't mean those who open me like a bag of chips are cheaters/exploiters.

"They farm WPs with their alts." They still have to PLAY the game, so what if it's not their 'main?'

Alts are presented by some as a bogeyman that is the cause of all problems, and now, with the new individual rewards system not even implemented yet, they're being blamed for problems that don't exist.

As far as I can see, the most complaining about alts is done by those who are jealous, either because of the 'rewards' the alts garner their main accounts, or because of the time some people have to invest in their alts, as opposed to those who don't.

You can be level 50 and still get wiped in a raid, or you can have been playing this game for years and still feel 'poor' compared to someone who drops hundreds of dollars on Fuel and keys. There will always be someone with more luck, or skill than us, that's life - and games too.

So take some time from complaining about problems that don't exist yet on the Forums, and go take a flag, or loot until you find a nice unique, and please stop blaming alts for everything that goes wrong.

@Nephy - a good idea about the different IPs required for an Alliance, although mine might have a problem as we are all on the same one :/

Ellaria

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:08 PM

Ellaria

50 posts

Ellaria, what would having to choose a main account mean? Con&Crew knows what accounts are tied together already. Just out of curiosity, what alliance are you in? You just come off as so aggressive and full of dejection. Its kind of like you have your ideas of what you want the game to be and it doesn't matter how other people enjoy this game. You bring zero production to any conversation.

What does "aggressive and full of dejection." , "You bring zero production to any conversation." have to do with providing constructive feedback? It doesn't. Ad Homonym attacks remove credibility from what you may feel is a logical argument. Feel free to disagree, just spare everyone the trolling trite. Thanks in advance.

T_J

Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:25 PM

T_J

481 posts

I believe the intent behind the solo alliance change is for future war points rewards. Solo alliances, and smaller alliances would have an easier chance to achieve the rewards while also leaving a much smaller footprint on the wars. I am thinking Con&Crew would rather see a large footprint to increase the targets for raiders. As far as solo alliances go, getting the task finished will change from one day to two, not really that big of a deal.